of the cities of Antioch, Smyrna, &c. there was only a single congregation of Christians, then the case is plain. Those venerable ministers were only Pastors or Bishops of single flocks, in perfect conformity with the Presbyterian model. But let us suppose that there were several large worshipping assemblies of Christians in each of those cities. It is true, the epistles of Ignatius do not give the least hint that this was the case; and we only infer it, from probable evidence, derived from other sources, without being able, on either side, to establish or to disprove the fact. Let it be admitted, however, that there were several worshipping assemblies in each of these cities; still this fact proves nothing in favor of prelacy. Their Pastors might each have had several congregations under their care, and several clergymen to assist them, without being Prelates, any more than the Rector of TrinityChurch thirty years ago was a Prelate. But we may go even further. Suppose it abundantly proved, that in the days of Ignatius, there were established in each of the cities of Antioch, Smyr na, &c. a number of separate and distinctly organized congregations, and that each was under the care of a Pastor. And suppose it further proved that, notwithstanding this Ignatius was, by way of eminence, styled Bishop of Antioch, and Polycarp Bishop of Smyrna; still the fact, even if established, would be perfectly consistent with Presbyterian parity. We have only to suppose these men were Moderators of the respective Presbyteries of those

cities, and all is natural, intelligible, and probable. In this case, we may consider all the instructions concerning Bishops and their flocks, which the epistles in question contain, as merely conveyed through the medium of the senior or presiding Pastor, to his colleagues, and as intended equally for all. Thus it appears that the epistles of Ignatius do not, on any supposition, contain a sentence which can be legitimately construed in favour of Prelacy; and that all the confidence of my opponents in asserting the contrary, is groundless and futile.

Dr. Bowden is equally positive, that I have misrepresented the testimony of Irenæus. Here again I beg of you impartially to review the extracts which I gave from the writings of that Father, and my comments upon them, together with all that Dr. B. has said on the subject; and then to decide between us. It is plain, and Dr. B. does not deny, that Irenæus speaks of certain persons, by name, as Presbyters, and represents them as successors of the Apostles. It is equally plain, that he speaks of the same persons, in another place, as Bishops, and, under that title also, represents them as having the succession from the Apostles. He does this, not once merely, but several times, and with as much point, and apparent care, as if his grand object had been to show that Presbyters and Bishops were then the same. The argument arising from this language is obviously in our favour. Dr. Bowden, indeed, thinks otherwise, and makes an attempt to answer it; but his embarrassment, and inability to

accomplish his purpose, must be apparent to every reader.

Dr. Bowden lays much stress on a passage in Irenæus, in which he speaks of these persons, whom he alternately calls Bishops and Presbyters, as succeeding the Apostles in their mastership. What is mastership? Simply, official authority. And what has this to do with Prelacy? Nothing. Suppose a Presbyterian were to say, " The Bishops "of our Church are the successors of the Apostles, "and succeed to as much of their authority or

66

mastership, as was intended to be perpetual in "the Church :" would any intelligent person who heard him, imagine that he was speaking a language either favourable to diocesan Episcopacy, or hostile to his own principles? Certainly not. And yet this language coincides, in every essential point, with that of Irenæus.-Dr. Bowden seems not to understand, or perpetually to forget, that we consider our Pastors or Bishops as the true and proper successors of the Apostles, so far as their office was ordinary and intended to be transmitted; and that we consider them as invested with the highest authority, or (if he prefer the word,) mastership in the Church.

But that part of the testimony of Irenæus to which Dr. Bowden attaches the greatest importance, is, that he represents the succession in the Church of Rome as flowing through single ministers whom he styles Bishops; although we have reason to believe that there were many Presbyters connected with

the Church in that city. Now, if there were a number of Bishops, in our sense of the word, in Rome, how, it is asked, could Irenæus trace the line of succession through single persons only? In other words, why does he single out Linus, Anacletus, Clemens, and Evaristus, as successively Bishops of Rome, when, according to our doctrine, there were, pretty certainly, a number of contemporary ministers in that Church, of the same rank with those whose names are mentioned? I answer, this statement of Irenæus is not to be relied on; and if it were, it is nothing to the purpose.

I say, the statement of this Father, respecting the succession in the Church of Rome, is not to be

relied upon. He says that Anacletus was before

Clemens, and next to Linus.

Tertulian and seve

ral others assure us that Clemens was next to Peter, and, of course, before Anacletus. Epiphanius and Optatus say that Anacletus and Cletus were before Clemens. While Augustine, Damasus, and others, assert that Anacletus, Cletus, and Linus, were all antecedent to Clemens. Here is perfect confusion. It is evident that these writers were guided by vague and contradictory traditions, and knew nothing of the matter. The probability, from the very face of the story, is that the Bishops or Pastors of whom they speak, did not all sit in the pastoral chair of Rome singly, and in succession, but several of them together. Accordingly Damasus, in his work De Gestis Pontificum, hath these words: "St. Peter ordained two Bishops, Linus and Cle

tus, who, in their own persons, should perform all "sacred offices to the Roman people." It is true these words are not to be found in the printed editions of that work; but they are in all the manuscript copies, and so they are cited by Marianus Scotus, as the learned Vossius assures us; who adds, "That the succession of Bishops at Rome, in a "single person, began under Evaristus. Before "his time two or three sat together*." The learned Junius, also, an illustrious Reformer of Holland, nearly contemporary with Luther, speaking of the contradictory testimony of the Fathers, respecting the succession of the first Bishops or Pastors of Rome, delivers the following decisive opinion. "These, or some of these, were Pres"byters or Bishops of Rome, at the same time, "ruling the Church in common. But the follow"ing writers, fancying to themselves such Bishops "as had then obtained in the Church, fell into these "snares of tradition, because they supposed, accor"ding to the custom of their own times, that there "could be but one Bishop in one Church at the same timet."

66

But, granting that there is no mistake in the testimony of Irenæus; granting that it is all authentic and worthy of confidence; it proves nothing inconsistent with the doctrine of Presbyterian parity. What though the pious Father represents a succes

• OWEN's History of Ordination, Chap. 1. Prop. vii. † JUNII Controv. Lib. ii. Cap. 5. Not. 18.